# Grand Unified Theory of the paranormal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710 "2005-10-11T04:10:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/101 "2005-10-15T14:02:00Z")
**Aeschines** , the semantic merry-go-round is now spinning at such an alarming rate that it seems that no sooner have I placed word like “dream”, “paranormal”, “paradigm”, “science”, “hallucination” or “matter” on it than it slips off again, and I try to avoid such playgrounds whenever possible since anyone can construct one in an instant. So I’ll limit my response to the points of greater substance. [ul][li]Scientific theories like General Relativity made such _absurd_ predictions, like starlight bent _an exact amount_ and the periheleon of Mercury shifted _an exact amount_ that the odds of such a prediction being accurate _a priori_ were such that one who did not believe the truth of General Relativity would simply have **no** explanation for their success.[/li][li]Freudian Psychology made no such testable predictions, and was therfore not scientific. “Interesting”? Not really, IMO.[/li][li]If the Big Bang is a myth, then so is _everything_, even the golf ball on the grass. Our observations of the photons of light from the golf ball reveals that it expands from a point, out to a maximum diameter, and shrinks again to a point: it is a _sphere_. Our observations of lunar eclipses and masted ships sailing over the horizon reveal that the _Earth_ expands from the North Pole out to the equator also. Our observations of the galactic redshift and CMB show that the _universe_ expands, and has done so from a compressed point. The expansion of the universe from the Big Bang (which we are _still in_, just as we are _on_ Earth) is as true as the roundness of the Earth, or indeed the golf ball. [/li][/ul]But the crux of our disagreement, and indeed this entire thread, regards what people experience and the application of Ockham’s Razor thereto. You apparently consider that schizophrenics suffer _delusions_: their experiences can usually be considered _solely_ neuropsychological since there is no evidence requiring a _different_ explanation. Now, let us turn to the NDE experiment. We don’t need ten 10-digit numbers - they’re hard enough to memorise anyway. Just a word and a two digit number would do: “Pluck 19” or something. Should 30 or so of these come up in demonstrably cheat-proof conditions (_ie._ nobody has had chance to whisper anything to them before they wake up and give testimony to the invigilator who has been present throughout) I would have to seriously question my position. But that’s quite a tricky experiment to set up. Where that is not possible due to whatever constraint, how about my far easier experiment in which the surgeons just make absurd suggestions which the blind (but not necessarily _deaf_) patient might hear? If the patient came back and gave precisely the same testimony of their NDE, including that they _really really thought they were literally watching from the ceiling_, but they “saw” those absurd things (like the “mail”, not the “mayo”), then **their NDE could not be veridical**. 30 or so of _those_ would surely having you applying Ockham’s Razor to the _others_ ,would it not? Or would you continue waiting for the word-number data? If _that_ came through with the patient remembering not the visible word-number but the **_wrong_ word-number which the _surgeon_ had suggested** , surely it would be time to seriously question _your_ position, agreed? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/102 "2005-10-16T02:08:58Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > **Aeschines** , the semantic merry-go-round is now spinning at such an alarming rate that it seems that no sooner have I placed word like “dream”, “paranormal”, “paradigm”, “science”, “hallucination” or “matter” on it than it slips off again, and I try to avoid such playgrounds whenever possible since anyone can construct one in an instant. You’re right that it’s a mess, but that’s the way philosophy is. Skeptics think they can use a word like “hallucination” however they wish–well we all _know_ what a hallucination is–and fail to understand that it’s never that simple. And often the reasoning behind the “disproof” relies on simple semantic tricks. NDEs are hallucinations, and we needn’t worry about hallucinations because, you know, they’re just brain farts. Etc. > [@](#): > > So I’ll limit my response to the points of greater substance. > [list][li]Scientific theories like General Relativity made such _absurd_ predictions, like starlight bent _an exact amount_ and the periheleon of Mercury shifted _an exact amount_ that the odds of such a prediction being accurate _a priori_ were such that one who did not believe the truth of General Relativity would simply have **no** explanation for their success.[/li][/quote] > I think you need to tread carefully here, because the nature of theoretical science is often quite different than that of laboratory or applied science. Einstein looked at the controversial experiments and data of his time and came up with a brilliant _mathematical model_ for how the Universe works. Further experiments proved him correct. This meshes perfectly with my view of That Which Is as being order, pattern, number, etc. I’m not sure what it says for your point of view, however. > > > [@](#): > > > > Freudian Psychology made no such testable predictions, and was therfore not scientific. “Interesting”? Not really, IMO. > > Not all disciplines termed “science” make such bold, successful predictions. I think you’ve skimmed the cream there with Einstein. Taxonomy, for example, is pretty much the discipline of making the various species and how they evolved easier to think about. And I would venture to say that psychology and sociology are mega-failures in the area of producing predictions that can then be tested, and so on. > > Should sociology be accepted as real “science”? > > But all that the above is a different debate. My point about FP was about the fluidity with which we see the world and how small-r reality can change. > > > [@](#): > > > > If the Big Bang is a myth, then so is _everything_, even the golf ball on the grass. > > You have a point in that we perceive all things through the metaphor of our senses and conceive of them through the metaphor of our thoughts. But myths are BIG metaphors that seek to make things beyond our senses or comprehension conprehensible. > > > [@](#): > > > > You apparently consider that schizophrenics suffer _delusions_: their experiences can usually be considered _solely_ neuropsychological since there is no evidence requiring a _different_ explanation. > > Basically true, but I said that “neuropsychological” is a fancy word for “the brain does it.” And since we don’t understand the brain, the fancy word does us very little good. It’s not worthless, however. We don’t look to the heart muscle for explanations as we might have done in the year 1350. And we have a lot of information about the brain, which, someday, might tell us something genuinely substantial. > > > [@](#): > > > > Now, let us turn to the NDE experiment. > > > > We don’t need ten 10-digit numbers - they’re hard enough to memorise anyway. Just a word and a two digit number would do: “Pluck 19” or something. Should 30 or so of these come up in demonstrably cheat-proof conditions (_ie._ nobody has had chance to whisper anything to them before they wake up and give testimony to the invigilator who has been present throughout) I would have to seriously question my position. > > Yes, I like your experimental design. You’re right that 10-digit numbers would be hard to remember; maybe they wouldn’t even have time to look at them well in the first place. > > And now we’ll just have to wait, since such an experiment definitely _can_ be run. I certainly disagree with **tomndeb’s** concept of “production.” We don’t have to have 100% control over NDEs to study them. The experiment could be run using willing patients who are about to undergo the types of surgeries or procedures in which NDEs are commonly presented with. > > > [@](#): > > > > But that’s quite a tricky experiment to set up. > > But worth the time and effort, I should think. Where that is not possible due to whatever constraint, how about my far easier experiment in which the surgeons just make absurd suggestions which the blind (but not necessarily _deaf_) patient might hear? [/quote] There are many flaws with this idea. First, the medical personnel need to focus on their real jobs. Setting a card out where the NDEer can see it is no biggie; having them playact in an experimentally rigourous manner strikes me as asking too much. > [@](#): > > If the patient came back and gave precisely the same testimony of their NDE, including that they _really really thought they were literally watching from the ceiling_, but they “saw” those absurd things (like the “mail”, not the “mayo”), then **their NDE could not be veridical**. I hope you read my last (admittedly long) post above, as I dealt with this issue directly. “Veridical” is probably a misnomer for these experiences; all it means is that the patient came back with information they should not have. It doesn’t imply that the experiences was an infallible witness to everything s/he perceived. An NDEer may be perceiving more or less accurately what is going on in the operating room but nevertheless be suggestible as to certain details. If anything, the material in the “Hallucinatory NDEs” article seems to contain few examples, but these would seem more to be the exceptions that prove the rule. Why aren’t NDEs as variable and chaotic as ordinary dreams? Why not just dream you are taking a trip to the store or that you’re laying the person at the office you had a crush on? Why are not even a small percentage a total chaotic mess of details? And so on. Skeptics say, “Gotcha!”; the NDEer goofed. My side sees a coherent, intelligible pattern. It’s a matter of perception. > [@](#): > > 30 or so of _those_ would surely having you applying Ockham’s Razor to the _others_ ,would it not? Well, here again is the skeptic’s desire to “just dismiss it.” I mean, what you trim with Ockham’s razor doesn’t exactly become the main course at supper, does it? So we just forget about NDEs–mere hallucinations, brain farts. I think not. Even if they don’t imply an Afterlife, they are one of the most important keys we have to how consciousness works, which I think you’ll agree is the most important topic in science today. Now, to be fair, perhaps by Ockham’s Razor in this case you mean just giving up on the idea that NDEs imply an Afterlife. And I would reply that they imply _something_, and we need to find out what that something is. But for the record, if you could run your chattering docs and nurses experiment somehow and they induced lots of suggestions, I would consider it a minus. I still say my can read/cannot read experiment or polling is a quick key to understanding the nature of NDEs. Not enough research has been done on that yet. If NDEers say, “Everything was nice and clear, but when I looked at the pages of the book the letters just swirled around,” then something is amiss. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/103 "2005-10-16T03:14:47Z")
> [@](#): > > I certainly disagree with **tomndeb** ’s concept of “production.” We don’t have to have 100% control over NDEs to study them. However, I never said that we could not study NDEs. I have simply noted that we do not have any way to produce them. Casting a wide net to examine them when they occur seems a legitimate method of study. Placing controls in some (large) number of hospital operating rooms to both catch more and provide better controls on the examination of those reported seems admirable. I have only noted that we do not have a method to _produce_ NDEs that meets the standard English meanings for “produce.” ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/104 "2005-10-16T03:16:18Z")
> [@](#): > > In the case of NDEs, we have people come out of the experience changed, empowered, and utterly confident that eternity awaits them after death. How exactly is this different from the empowerment felt by a schizophrenic who believes themselves the risen Christ? > [@](#): > > Skeptics say, “They ain’t no eternity, man–BOOLshit!” I’ll get back to this. > [@](#): > > But the NDEers have seen and experienced eternity They certainly _think_ that they have. There is no definitive evidence that they actually have. > [@](#): > > and now live without fear of the thing man is most afraid of but can do the very least about. If that isn’t empowerment, I don’t know what is. Francis E Dreck Esquire. > [@](#): > > Schizophrenics provide an example of people who can have beliefs that are both false and extreme. The lack of subtlety (in many cases) makes for a good, clear example of delusion What has convinced you that the beliefs of schizophrenics are delusions and false? Why do you call them extreme? What exactly is the difference between a shizophrenic ranting in the street that he has seen God, and a person who had an NDE doing the same thing? > [@](#): > > But contrast them with NDEers who attain greater harmony with themselves and with their environments. Cite? Further, as you must be aware, it’s often theorized that many shamans were schizophrenic. Believing that you have special powers, can see things no one else can, and that evil beings seek to harm you _is_ in harmony with your environment when you live in a culture that accepts such things. > [@](#): > > But let’s dig deeper. My take on NDEs is not that someone, when s/he nearly dies, is taken into a world of pure stability and total veridicity, as it were. Because NDEers are now in a construction that we would term “mental.” People communicate by telepathy. If you think if an object, it appears. And if that sounds like the dreamworld, then you’re right: it’s very much like it but with some important differences: > > 1. External intelligences you meet in dreams are self-created (usually but not always). Those you meet in the Afterlife are not self-created (usually not not always). And there can be matters of degree in this, too. That’s why I have no problem with certain levels of chaos in an NDE: some part of it is the NDEers projection and some part of it is not. My guess is that most of the projecting occurs pre-OBE and during the OBE portion (but before the tunnel). > > 2. The Afterlife world is far more stable than the dream world. You could pick up a book and read it, impossible in a dream. (This is a very important test of whether NDEs and OBEs are more than dreams, because it is known fact that you cannot read extensively and stably in a dream or in hypnosis. If you ask a person under hypnosis to pick up a book and read, they will give it a shot but soon give up [maybe some will wing it but not convince the audience]). > > 3. Time does not work as it does in a dream. On what are you basing these assumptions? I said I’d get back to something you said earlier, I’ve grouped it below with a few others. > [@](#): > > Ultimately, as we New Agers keenly feel, the term “paranormal” serves as a highly illegal but beguilingly simple mental shortcut for those of the skeptical persuasion: If it seems like the kind of we don’t believe in, then it’s a priori false. > > Skeptics think they can use a word like “hallucination” however they wish > > Well, here again is the skeptic’s desire to “just dismiss it.” > > Skeptics like to sneer at ol’ Xianity: It’s a bullshit myth, man! It ain’t “true”; ergo, it can only do you harm > > Skeptics like to deride the Judeo-Christian creation myth > > In the case of NDEs, we have people come out of the experience changed, empowered, and utterly confident that eternity awaits them after death. Skeptics say, “They ain’t no eternity, man–BOOLshit!” Hmm strawman + ad hominem= ad strawminem? Are there any other things you’d like to falsely claim skeptics believe? Speaking as a skeptic, the term “paranormal” is a grouping of such things as ghosts, psychics, NDEs, OBEs, etc which have not been proven to exist and which seemingly contradict the known laws of physics. Nah. You don’t spend as many years seeing shrinks as I have without learning how to properly use words like hallucination. Again, not all skeptics are atheists. I believe in a God whose presence I feel in my everyday life. However, as a skeptic I realize that while what I have experienced is proof enough for me, it does not constitute proof in either a legal or scientific sense and I do not expect it to convince any one else of the existence of God. (I don’t sneer at Christianity. Though, as a Jew I do feel they were wrong about a certain carpenter being the messiah.) Well, Genesis does contain two conflicting accounts of creation. (I realize I run close to the No True Scotsman fallacy here, But I feel my point is valid). No true skeptic would say that there is no afterlife. That would be making a conclusion without evidence. All any skeptic can say is ‘There is no proof of an afterlife.’ a statement I agree with. I believe in an afterlife, but that belief is based on faith rather than evidence. When some one claims to have such evidence, I examine it as a skeptic should. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/105 "2005-10-16T07:54:00Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > How exactly is this different from the empowerment felt by a schizophrenic who believes themselves the risen Christ? You’ll demonstrate this in a second. > [@](#): > > Francis E Dreck Esquire. I’m not familiar with his work. > [@](#): > > What has convinced you that the beliefs of schizophrenics are delusions and false? Why do you call them extreme? What exactly is the difference between a shizophrenic ranting in the street that he has seen God, and a person who had an NDE doing the same thing? Thank you for explaining the difference. Schizophrenics rant in the street and make nuisances of themselves. NDEers don’t. That’s what I mean by harmony/disharmony. Further, the claims of the NDEers, regardless of how testable they are, do not run counter to the facts of everyday life or of history. The schizophrenic as Christ will not have a grasp of the mundane reality around him, and his delusion of self as Christ is in conflict with the historical myth (can he heal the sick as Christ did? Etc.). > [@](#): > > Cite? The claim that NDEers feel more at peace with the question of death is in every work written on the subject. I hope we don’t have to argue over whether that’s actually been _claimed._ > [@](#): > > Further, as you must be aware, it’s often theorized that many shamans were schizophrenic. Believing that you have special powers, can see things no one else can, and that evil beings seek to harm you _is_ in harmony with your environment when you live in a culture that accepts such things. Assuming the claim is true, I think it’s prima facie the case that schizophrenics aren’t very happy and self-harmonized people. So even if their disease was “put to use” by their society I don’t think that’s good enough. You really think someone who’s had an NDE is equivalent to a schizophrenic? Hmm. > [@](#): > > On what are you basing these assumptions? That’s my synthesis of what I’ve read on the matter. > [@](#): > > Hmm strawman + ad hominem= ad strawminem? Are there any other things you’d like to falsely claim skeptics believe? You’re side has “believers” as “woo-woos,” mine has skeptics as hypocrites and “close-minded.” That’s just the way we feel about each other, I guess, based on a lot of interactions. It’s not personally aimed at anyone in this thread. > [@](#): > > Speaking as a skeptic, the term “paranormal” is a grouping of such things as ghosts, psychics, NDEs, OBEs, etc which have not been proven to exist and which seemingly contradict the known laws of physics. An additional factor is needed, one that indicates that people actually believe in these things. “Unicorns” are not paranormal because (I hope) no one actually believes in them. It’s not a bad definition for your side of the debate, but not really useful for mine. We feel the laws of physics are far from being totally understood and fail to see how some of these things violate even the known laws (an alien in a space ship visiting Earth does not necessarily violate the laws of physics). > [@](#): > > Nah. You don’t spend as many years seeing shrinks as I have without learning how to properly use words like hallucination. OK, let’s not go there. > [@](#): > > Again, not all skeptics are atheists. I believe in a God whose presence I feel in my everyday life. However, as a skeptic I realize that while what I have experienced is proof enough for me, it does not constitute proof in either a legal or scientific sense and I do not expect it to convince any one else of the existence of God. (I don’t sneer at Christianity. Though, as a Jew I do feel they were wrong about a certain carpenter being the messiah.) And I personally reject belief based on faith, so I guess I’m the bigger skeptic. NOT, because I recognize the power and benefits of myth, even if its elements are not all “literally” true or non-contradictory. > [@](#): > > No true skeptic would say that there is no afterlife. That would be making a conclusion without evidence. All any skeptic can say is ‘There is no proof of an afterlife.’ a statement I agree with. I believe in an afterlife, but that belief is based on faith rather than evidence. When some one claims to have such evidence, I examine it as a skeptic should. That were a level-headed fair approach, but when you are on my side of the debate the fact that media skeptics and even people on this board take a very self-satisfied and mocking stance toward those things they consider “woo-woo.” ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/106 "2005-10-16T11:15:41Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > And I would venture to say that psychology … are mega-failures in the area of producing predictions that can then be tested, and so on. Well, there you dismiss vast swathes of eminently verifiable experiments which fill libraries. To take one example from literally thousands, _Phantoms in the Brain_ describes ingenious experiments which predict “brain does it” outcomes versus “other” outcomes, with the “brain does it” outcomes being universally observed when the actual experiment is run. > [@](#): > > Setting a card out where the NDEer can see it is no biggie; having them playact in an experimentally rigourous manner strikes me as asking too much. On the contrary, setting up the card must occur at the beginning of the crisis in the midst of pandemonium, while surgeon’s suggestions can take place whenever they think the crisis is under control. > [@](#): > > Skeptics say, “Gotcha!”; the NDEer goofed. My side sees a coherent, intelligible pattern. But it shows that they **cannot be** _literally seeing things from ceiling perspective_. NDE’s are certainly _interesting_, but so long as we agree on this then we’re not fundamentally opposed. > [@](#): > > Now, to be fair, perhaps by Ockham’s Razor in this case you mean just giving up on the idea that NDEs imply an Afterlife. Yes, this is precisely what I’ve been saying throughout given the title of this thread. > [@](#): > > But for the record, if you could run your chattering docs and nurses experiment somehow and they induced lots of suggestions, I would consider it a minus. And at that point would you and your New Age friends agree that there is simply _no evidence of the required calibre_ for entities which science (cognitive, cosmological or whatever) considers unnecessary? (Science could still _investiagte interesting phenomena_, you realise.) ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/107 "2005-10-16T15:58:00Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I’m not familiar with his work. [From The Kooks Museum](http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/dec.html) > [@](#): > > Thank you for explaining the difference. Schizophrenics rant in the street and make nuisances of themselves. NDEers don’t. That’s what I mean by harmony/disharmony. That’s it? That’s the only difference? That seems to be a difference of personality rather than pathology. > [@](#): > > Further, the claims of the NDEers, regardless of how testable they are, do not run counter to the facts of everyday life or of history. The schizophrenic as Christ will not have a grasp of the mundane reality around him, and his delusion of self as Christ is in conflict with the historical myth (can he heal the sick as Christ did? Etc.). So, according to your criteria, if an NDE runs counter to myths of the afterlife it is then a delusion? > [@](#): > > The claim that NDEers feel more at peace with the question of death is in every work written on the subject. I hope we don’t have to argue over whether that’s actually been _claimed._ That’s not what I asked for a cite on. You made the claim that NDErs were more at harmony with themselves and their environment. I want a cite on that. > [@](#): > > Assuming the claim is true, I think it’s prima facie the case that schizophrenics aren’t very happy and self-harmonized people. I disagree. Before anybody suggests I am disagreeing just for the heck of it, my views on schizophrenia really do run counter to **Aeschines**. I’ve met plenty of people suffering extreme delusions (sometimes accompanied by hallucinations) who did not realize they were mentally ill, and felt a sense of purpose and of being special due to their delusions. Again, what precisely do you mean by “self-harmonized”? > [@](#): > > So even if their disease was “put to use” by their society I don’t think that’s good enough. Why not? Why shouldn’t Olaf Runecaster, Marcus the augurer, or Three Crows be happy? According to their cultures, they are not ill at all, but gifted. Why shouldn’t they be in harmony with themselves? They have a high status, and job security for the rest of their lives. They don’t rant on the street and harrass strangers. People seek them out and ask for their advice. If they say that invisible demons are plotting to attack the village, the other villagers believe them and ask how to protect themselves. > [@](#): > > You really think someone who’s had an NDE is equivalent to a schizophrenic? No. I’m trying to understand why _you_ believe that NDEs are real and constitute proof of the spiritual, but dismiss schizophrenics as deluded. > [@](#): > > That’s my synthesis of what I’ve read on the matter. What are your criteria for deciding which NDEs are ‘real’ and which are the result of mundane causes? > [@](#): > > You’re side has “believers” as “woo-woos,” mine has skeptics as hypocrites and “close-minded.” That’s just the way we feel about each other, I guess, based on a lot of interactions. It’s not personally aimed at anyone in this thread. But, nobody in this thread is calling your side “believers” “woo-woos” etc. The only ad hominem I see is being posted by you. In a Pit thread, you complained of the hostility and derision in these debates. The only hostility and derision I’ve seen is coming from you. > [@](#): > > An additional factor is needed, one that indicates that people actually believe in these things. “Unicorns” are not paranormal because (I hope) no one actually believes in them. Good point. > [@](#): > > It’s not a bad definition for your side of the debate, but not really useful for mine. We feel the laws of physics are far from being totally understood Any decent skeptic would agree with you. That is why I said “the _known_ laws of physics”. **Chronos** and other dopers knowledgable in the subject disagree on things all the time. How many dimensions does our universe have? Why is gravity so weak? etc. > [@](#): > > OK, let’s not go there. Why not? Freud’s work was unquestionably unscientific and deeply flawed. What about all the other big names in psychology? Skinner? Pavlov? > [@](#): > > And I personally reject belief based on faith, so I guess I’m the bigger skeptic. Again, what exactly has convinced you that the many accounts of NDEs you’ve read are true? > [@](#): > > That were a level-headed fair approach, but when you are on my side of the debate the fact that media skeptics and even people on this board take a very self-satisfied and mocking stance toward those things they consider “woo-woo.” Again, I see a post where you accuse skeptics of acting “self-satisfied and mocking”, and no posts by skeptics making similiar attacks on your side. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/108 "2005-10-17T23:32:10Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Well, there you dismiss vast swathes of eminently verifiable experiments which fill libraries. To take one example from literally thousands, _Phantoms in the Brain_ describes ingenious experiments which predict “brain does it” outcomes versus “other” outcomes, with the “brain does it” outcomes being universally observed when the actual experiment is run. I don’t know what you’re trying to cite here, but I stand by my point (now orphaned from the debate, and I don’t care to retrieve the connection) that psychology is a weak, lame “science” that has had a horrendous cost-benefit ratio over the past 100 years. > [@](#): > > On the contrary, setting up the card must occur at the beginning of the crisis in the midst of pandemonium, while surgeon’s suggestions can take place whenever they think the crisis is under control. The card can–should–be pre-placed in the operating room according to the strict protocols correctly deemed necessary. Having doctors say what they “think up” when they “think” things are under control sounds like an experiment that is totally not under control, and totally unscientific. > [@](#): > > But it shows that they **cannot be** _literally seeing things from ceiling perspective_. NDE’s are certainly _interesting_, but so long as we agree on this then we’re not fundamentally opposed. I don’t think we’re fundamentally opposed, whether we agree on this point or not. > [@](#): > > And at that point would you and your New Age friends agree that there is simply _no evidence of the required calibre_ for entities which science (cognitive, cosmological or whatever) considers unnecessary? (Science could still _investiagte interesting phenomena_, you realise.) I’ll be satisfied if it merely continues to find them interesting and invetigates them fairly and open-mindedly. It is the end result that I am after, not so much the judgments made midway. I think we’ve debated this one out. Thanks for keeping it civil, interesting, and fair throughout, as you always do. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/109 "2005-10-18T00:00:43Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > That’s it? That’s the only difference? That seems to be a difference of personality rather than pathology. I don’t see _any_ pathologies in NDEers as a group–do you, other than that they believe something that you don’t? It’s a matter of personal opinion or even of personal taste, but how are you going to deem NDEers “pathological” (if I understand you correct, and I may not be) and not religious believers like yourself? NDEers beliefs are at least based on personal experience and not dogma or faith, as are religious beliefs. > [@](#): > > So, according to your criteria, if an NDE runs counter to myths of the afterlife it is then a delusion? If it runs counter to basic facts, I would consider it at least mistaken, possibly delusional. > [@](#): > > That’s not what I asked for a cite on. You made the claim that NDErs were more at harmony with themselves and their environment. I want a cite on that. Any substantail website on NDEs on the web makes this claim and cites cases. I’ll take it for granted that you disagree with these claims. > [@](#): > > Before anybody suggests I am disagreeing just for the heck of it, my views on schizophrenia really do run counter to **Aeschines**. I’ve met plenty of people suffering extreme delusions (sometimes accompanied by hallucinations) who did not realize they were mentally ill, and felt a sense of purpose and of being special due to their delusions. I don’t deny what you say, but I will say that their inability to grasp basic facts. > [@](#): > > Again, what precisely do you mean by “self-harmonized”? A person who seems at peace with himself, is free of stress, is not self-destructive, etc. Mature, integrated. And that’s a continuum, not an all-or-nothing. The guy holding down a 9-to-5 and going home and watching TV and getting up the next day and doing it again is more self-harmonized that the schizo raving all day and sleeping in the gutter at night. > [@](#): > > Why not? Why shouldn’t Olaf Runecaster, Marcus the augurer, or Three Crows be happy? According to their cultures, they are not ill at all, but gifted. Why shouldn’t they be in harmony with themselves? They have a high status, and job security for the rest of their lives. They don’t rant on the street and harrass strangers. People seek them out and ask for their advice. If they say that invisible demons are plotting to attack the village, the other villagers believe them and ask how to protect themselves. It’s an interesting topic, but you’re kind of making up your own stories to prove your point, so it’s hard for me to respond. I’d have to investigate those situations further and assess them. > [@](#): > > No. I’m trying to understand why _you_ believe that NDEs are real and constitute proof of the spiritual, but dismiss schizophrenics as deluded. First, I don’t use the word “spiritual” without caveats; I think it’s an imprecise, misleading term understood differently by everyone. So I don’t know how to respond to your point. > [@](#): > > What are your criteria for deciding which NDEs are ‘real’ and which are the result of mundane causes? Again I never used the term “mundane causes” nor made an argument that hinged upon a similar concept. > [@](#): > > But, nobody in this thread is calling your side “believers” “woo-woos” etc. The only ad hominem I see is being posted by you. In a Pit thread, you complained of the hostility and derision in these debates. The only hostility and derision I’ve seen is coming from you. **Sentient** and I have developed a splendid debating relationship, I don’t see much of a problem between you and me here, and **TD** and I debated rather reasonably, I think. Who else is there? > [@](#): > > That is why I said “the _known_ laws of physics”. **Chronos** and other dopers knowledgable in the subject disagree on things all the time. How many dimensions does our universe have? Why is gravity so weak? etc. Sorry I misunderstood. Then, if it’s true that NDEs and other things apparently violate the “known laws,” then I suspect that our knowledge of physics stands to increase, which can only be a good thing. But I am not myself concluding that they violate any such laws, or that they do not. > [@](#): > > Why not? Freud’s work was unquestionably unscientific and deeply flawed. What about all the other big names in psychology? Skinner? Pavlov? Behaviorism is not in favor those days, but those two scientists added to our knowledge. Freud did too, of course, if only through his spreading knowledge of his case studies, etc. It was his theory that was awful. > [@](#): > > Again, what exactly has convinced you that the many accounts of NDEs you’ve read are true? The experiencers, in percentages so high that no skeptical essay quotes the opposite percentage, say that their experience was “real.” And getting into the philosophical dimensions of what “real” in such a case may mean (as we have in this thread), I conclude, based on the self-harmony of the experiencers and their experiences’ harmony with their environments, that the claims are true on their own terms, which is alll that is necessary to deem them “real.” ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/110 "2005-10-18T08:46:01Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I think we’ve debated this one out. Perhaps, but reading throught the whole thread again I think there is still an important barrier we’ve yet to break down, regarding the language you will accept when I describe my position. You complain of being treated unfairly by skeptics but, if I may say as respectfully as I can, throughout this thread the person who has mischaracterised their opposition most seems to be **you**. Who says that neuropsychology is about “brain farts”? Who says that the Afterlife is **dis** proven? Not me, or indeed anyone here. Are these words, and many like them, not introduced just to conveniently make the opposing position easier to argue with, perhaps? Words I have used here: _extraordinary, evidence, paradigm, scientific, pseudoscientific, experiment, prediction, falsifiable, ‘radically impugned’, dream, matter, hallucination, neuropsychological, delusion, Ockham’s Razor, unnecessary, actual facts_. And I’ll introduce another important one: [symbol]Skepsis[/symbol] - _Skepsis_ (“inquiry”). Words I have emphatically **not** used here: _disproven, ‘brain fart’, dismiss, ‘totally sussed’, empty set, void, perjorative, ‘not real’, illegal, myths, ‘forget about’, BOOL-shit, ‘a priori false’, assumption, disharmony, arbitrary opinion._ You say that “philosophy is messy” when, like a playroom in which new toys have continually been rejected, the one _making_ the mess seems to be _you_. (Again, understand that I speak candidly as a friend here). Philosophy can be tidied up most effectively by judicious use of Ockham’s Razor in preventing entities and explanations multiplying without limit. By rejecting even the language of reasonable skeptics like (hopefully) myself, **tom** and **Doc** because you don’t want to be considered a “woo woo”, you make it very difficult to discuss the subject of inquiry at all. So I have a request which might make our future discussions more productive. I will ask you to write a brief essay on a certain subject. Please, don’t just instantly fire off a one-liner in response - I’m not seeking to make you look foolish. I’m just seeking language by which I can accurately describe my position which _you_ find acceptable. Specifically, I’d like to see how you characterise your _own_ [symbol]skepsis[/symbol] in order to later convince you that I’m merely doing exactly the same when it comes to ghosts, ESP, afterlife-glimpses or anything else which would radically impugn the current scientific paradigm (and I agree that those literal alien abductions _wouldn’t_ do this - I’d actually place them with JFK conspiracies and the like rather than “paranormal” phenomena) that you presumably do with the essay subject. Please take time (if you have it) to consider the essay question, but if you really think it _that_ uninteresting or unfair, then feel free to choose another subject (vitalism or Intelligent Design versus “the genes do it”, perhaps). In any case, here it is: Many people, in history and throughout the world today, believe in individual magical beings who can affect the world around us. You and I would describe them as **fairies**. Please write a brief essay, most importantly _using as many of the words in those two lists above as possible_, detailing your thoughts on fairies. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/111 "2005-10-19T00:58:13Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I don’t see _any_ pathologies in NDEers as a group–do you, other than that they believe something that you don’t? You’ve misinterpreted my point. You mentioned a criteria of schizophrenics ranting in the street, and NDErs not doing so as a sign of ‘self-harmony’. My point was that ranting in the street or not can be explained by differences in personality, rather than one person being deluded and another not. Different schizophrenics with similar delusions may rant in the street, put up well made flyers, or start up websites. Therefore, using the symptom of ranting in the street to seperate the deluded from the sane is faulty. > [@](#): > > It’s a matter of personal opinion or even of personal taste, but how are you going to deem NDEers “pathological” (if I understand you correct, and I may not be) I didn’t. You misunderstood. > [@](#): > > and not religious believers like yourself? NDEers beliefs are at least based on personal experience and not dogma or faith, as are religious beliefs. There’s a mischaracterization. While I’m willing to concede that all religious beliefs rest on faith, not all religious beliefs are based on dogma, and plenty of religious beliefs are based on personal experiences. In this very thread, I said that my faith was based on personal experience. Here’s an example from my LiveJournal (yes, it really did happen) [http://www.livejournal.com/users/doc\_cathode/42681.html](http://www.livejournal.com/users/doc_cathode/42681.html) > [@](#): > > If it runs counter to basic facts, I would consider it at least mistaken, possibly delusional. I didn’t ask about basic facts. I asked about NDEs which run counter to myths of the afterlife. > [@](#): > > Any substantail website on NDEs on the web makes this claim and cites cases. I’ll take it for granted that you disagree with these claims. I will take it for granted that the claims, cites and cases made on these sites cannot be verified. I’ll take it for granted you have no cite to back up your claims of ‘greater self-harmony’. > [@](#): > > I don’t deny what you say, but I will say that their inability to grasp basic facts. What basic facts would you say schizophrenics are unable to grasp? > [@](#): > > A person who seems at peace with himself, is free of stress, is not self-destructive, etc. I fail to see how stress is any indicator of self-harmony. For example, I’d imagine that Harriet Tubman’s stress level was quite high. > [@](#): > > Mature It doesn’t help to clarify what you mean by a word that is subjective and unclear to use another word that is even more subjective, and therefore even more unclear. > [@](#): > > integrated Again, what exactly do you mean by this word? > [@](#): > > And that’s a continuum, not an all-or-nothing. The guy holding down a 9-to-5 and going home and watching TV and getting up the next day and doing it again is more self-harmonized that the schizo raving all day and sleeping in the gutter at night. Again, what if the schizophrenic rants through flyers, websites, etc has good grooming and personal hygiene habits, a job and a home? > [@](#): > > It’s an interesting topic, but you’re kind of making up your own stories to prove your point, so it’s hard for me to respond. I’d have to investigate those situations further and assess them. I am not making up stories. I am discussing hypothetical examples of something. This is no more ‘making up your own stories’ than your hypothetical homeless schizophrenic above. > [@](#): > > First, I don’t use the word “spiritual” without caveats; I think it’s an imprecise, misleading term understood differently by everyone. So I don’t know how to respond to your point. You have a point there. > [@](#): > > Again I never used the term “mundane causes” nor made an argument that hinged upon a similar concept. I never claimed you used that phrase. I never claimed you made such an argument. However, you have stated that you believe that at least some NDEs cannot be explained by biochemistry, neurology, etc but are actual cases of concsiousness leaving the physical body and operating and sensing without need for limbs, eyes, etc. Unless you believe that ALL NDE’s are of that variety, how do you distinguish between those which are cases of OBE, and those which are hallucinations, etc? As an analogy, I believe that I can buy items made of real ivory cheaply at garage sales. I also know that many varieties of fake ivory can be found at garage sales. I can (usually) tell them apart by texture, weight, rigidity, the shape of certain features, and the smell. > [@](#): > > **Sentient** and I have developed a splendid debating relationship, I don’t see much of a problem between you and me here, and **TD** and I debated rather reasonably, I think. Who else is there? So, it’s acceptable to attack a group, so long as you specifically exempt members of that group posting to the thread? By that standard, I could make as many ad hominem attacks on New Agers as I wanted, as long as I exempted you. [QUOTE] Sorry I misunderstood. Then, if it’s true that NDEs and other things apparently violate the “known laws,” then I suspect that our knowledge of physics stands to increase, which can only be a good thing. But I am not myself concluding that they violate any such laws, or that they do not. [QUOTE] The existence of a consciousness seperate from the brain, capable of moving through solid objects, and capable of seeing and hearing its surroundings without being detectable by any known means, would indeed violate many of the laws of physics. However, until the existence of such a thing is proven, there is no need to change these laws. > [@](#): > > Behaviorism is not in favor those days, but those two scientists added to our knowledge. Freud did too, of course, if only through his spreading knowledge of his case studies, etc. It was his theory that was awful. Again, with Freud? > [@](#): > > The experiencers, in percentages so high that no skeptical essay quotes the opposite percentage, say that their experience was “real.” Again, so do many schizophrenics. > [@](#): > > And getting into the philosophical dimensions of what “real” in such a case may mean (as we have in this thread), I conclude, based on the self-harmony of the experiencers and their experiences’ harmony with their environments, Based on that standard, the only reason Francis E Dreq wasn’t our only hope against the Government Frankenstein Conspiracy was that he didn’t have a job. > [@](#): > > that the claims are true on their own terms, which is alll that is necessary to deem them “real.” I could not disagree more strongly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710.md?page=5)